This is a thread about ridiculous political positions of the republican party and while I appreciate you coming here and demonstrating them, I'm not going to waste another second on this utter nonsense. Please do not derail my thread further with this drivel.

---------- Post added 2012-11-12 at 11:55 PM ----------

Not to mention there is a lapse between jobs where you will lose the healthcare provided by your former employer when you leave, and then have to work anywhere between 3-6 months at the new job for you to even be offered new health insurance.

Your entire thread...and apparently your entire worldview is drivel. Its based on utter nonsense, willfull ignorance, irrational hatred, and a lifetime of being lied to. That kind of trash deserves to be challenged.

The point is that businesses should be allowed to run their organizations as they see fit...free from interference by the government. I get why we have minimum wage laws...I don't understand why its necessary for a private entity to fund birth control. If businesses make bad decisions then they just fail...so how about you let them fight it out and see who the victor is. Competition is a good thing...if its a good idea and people like it then they'll do it...if they have an objection to it then let them feel the consequences. Them choosing not to provide birth control isn't hurting anybody...if a woman wants it she can get it like she always has.

If companies were not restricted by government then they would throw all their waste products in the river, 100% of the time because its cost effective to do so. There are regulations which are required to A) Preserve the environment, and B) Save lives of the workers or the civilians they impact.

I need you to understand the bottom line here before I even go any further with your argument. When Birth control is not made available and a child birth results from it that birth costs everyone a great deal more than the birth control would have. So from an economic position everyone wins when an unwanted pregnancy is avoided, not just the two partners involved. Health insurance companies should cover the health needs of its patrons. Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate between what health needs their insurance meets of a female based on their religious beliefs. It's really that simple

Neither of which I'm advocating...nor any conservative I know. The logical conclusion of what your suggesting though is the destruction of any incentive to achieve...

No, what I'm suggesting is reasonable regulations on business. This straw man conservatives march out and beat to death daily has no basis in reality. No one is suggesting businesses have all of their wealth seized or have their every action dictated from Washington. You outright advocated businesses be allowed to do whatever they like and let the market decide, and that mindset has lead to very bad situations in the past (and the present, in other countries).

No. It shows that when you ask a hundred people a question you can edit a video such that two of them reply in a moronic way. Most democrats (like me) would -NOT- support banning soft drinks or trans fats (though trans fats should be labelled so at least you have the choice)

They have views and legislate according to those views. Like every other party in existence.

More like the 1920s. I'd prefer the 1950s fiscal policy, myself.

Republicans are not even close to the party of 'personal liberty'.

Tax breaks for the wealthiest does not equal "economic freedom". We tried that under Bush, it left us in a recession. Look up the tax rates on the richest people in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s. No, stop typing furiously and go look, you'll be surprised.

Most people would disagree with that. I'm not one of those people. Would you concede that exceptions must be made in extreme circumstances such as rape, incest, and the life of the mother?

Fannie May and Freddie Mac were democratic creations based which resulted in extreme loans being given to people who could almost certainly not pay them back...democrats had a role in the collapse as well.

All you anit-choice people do understand that the planet is already drastically overpopulated right? Sustainable numbers are in the 2 billion range, and we are at 7 billion + atm.

That's complete tripe.

---------- Post added 2012-11-13 at 12:12 AM ----------

Originally Posted by titan972

Fannie May and Freddie Mac were democratic creations based which resulted in extreme loans being given to people who could almost certainly not pay them back...democrats had a role in the collapse as well.

I love how conservatives think they can blame the banks collapsing on the Government telling them to be nice to poor people. They insured loans that were almost guaranteed to fail because there was no regulation and it was profitable, not because the government made them.

Fannie May and Freddie Mac were democratic creations based which resulted in extreme loans being given to people who could almost certainly not pay them back...democrats had a role in the collapse as well.

And to the last point...yes.

It was cheaper to own, then rent. What do you think the outcome would be? Many of those people could have paid them off if they had sensible fixed interests rates too btw.

I hate when people turn the situation around and attack poor people.

You mean they didn't read their mortgage with the variable interest rate? Well of course they deserved to get fucked over!

It would take a fucking lawyer and calculus professor about a week to decipher that shit.

If companies were not restricted by government then they would throw all their waste products in the river, 100% of the time because its cost effective to do so. There are regulations which are required to A) Preserve the environment, and B) Save lives of the workers or the civilians they impact.

I need you to understand the bottom line here before I even go any further with your argument. When Birth control is not made available and a child birth results from it that birth costs everyone a great deal more than the birth control would have. So from an economic position everyone wins when an unwanted pregnancy is avoided, not just the two partners involved. Health insurance companies should cover the health needs of its patrons. Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate between what health needs their insurance meets of a female based on their religious beliefs. It's really that simple

The aborted child doesn't really "win" - do you not understand that quite a lot of people find it reprehensible to be supporting that even on an indirect level. It should be their choice to not support something which they find objectionable.

---------- Post added 2012-11-13 at 12:14 AM ----------

Originally Posted by dantian

No, what I'm suggesting is reasonable regulations on business. This straw man conservatives march out and beat to death daily has no basis in reality. No one is suggesting businesses have all of their wealth seized or have their every action dictated from Washington. You outright advocated businesses be allowed to do whatever they like and let the market decide, and that mindset has lead to very bad situations in the past (and the present, in other countries).

I agree that some level of regulation is needed...forcing businesses to provide birth control isn't one of them.

---------- Post added 2012-11-13 at 12:16 AM ----------

Originally Posted by dantian

That's complete tripe.

---------- Post added 2012-11-13 at 12:12 AM ----------

I love how conservatives think they can blame the banks collapsing on the Government telling them to be nice to poor people. They insured loans that were almost guaranteed to fail because there was no regulation and it was profitable, not because the government made them.

It wasn't profitable and the government did force some organizations to provide them.

It wasn't profitable and the government did force some organizations to provide them.

WHAT?!? People made hundred of millions of dollars. Not the companies mind you, they were the fall guys. They always are nowadays.
They are public entities, and if they go under then the they don't give a shit.

It wasn't profitable and the government did force some organizations to provide them.

Sorry, you're just wrong. There is no debate to be had here when you can't get the facts right. Banks had a significant financial incentive to hand out loans that were guaranteed to default and collect insurance money on them. That's what happens when you have no regulation, businesses can do ridiculous things like rig a loan to fail and then collect the money they bet against the loan they handed out.

Your entire thread...and apparently your entire worldview is drivel. Its based on utter nonsense, willfull ignorance, irrational hatred, and a lifetime of being lied to. That kind of trash deserves to be challenged.

No, see I love and respect women as my equal. I do not need to remove their choices and I don't believe I am in a better position to dictate their bodies than they are which is my worldview on abortion or anything pertaining to women at all. They are able to make their own decisions about their body.

Have you even thought out your own stance to its logical conclusion? Lets take a walk together

You seek to outlaw abortions in all circumstances, so lets see how that plays out.

A woman becomes pregnant and has two options, keep the child or seek to terminate the pregnancy. You've made medical abortions illegal, so she will have to use an alternative do it yourself method or find what is hopefully a licensed professional willing to work outside the law. Oh, you thought making things illegal removes someones will to seek it out? No, and before abortions were made accessible women would be seriously harmed or killed by these risky practices in record numbers. You'd like to go back to that? Just to force someone to have a child they do not want to have? And then what, clearly you think you're in a position to dictate to the mother what she has to do with the future of her childs life, so follow that through. What if she is neglectful of her unwanted child that is now born and complicating her life? Your concern was only placed in forcing its birth, now it's in the world and suddenly you're letting the mother have choices again? She chooses when to feed it, what to feed it, or not to feed it at all. What if she is depressed, what if the father of the child was her own father who raped her and the child reminds her of that every single day.

This is why you allow individuals to make their own decisions regarding their own body and their reproductive system.

All you anit-choice people do understand that the planet is already drastically overpopulated right? Sustainable numbers are in the 2 billion range, and we are at 7 billion + atm.

This isn't something you can really expect science to fix either... The problem will only get worse and worse over time.

I'm with you on the abortion freedom thing, but your belief that 5 billion humans have to die to be "sustainable" is abhorent. We've already fixed so very MANY limiting issues on population with better crops and medicine that I'm pretty damned sure there's nothing sustainable about 2 billion that 7 or 9 simply can't speak to.

What could the republican party possibly change to? If they take more liberal stances they will become the same thing as the democrats and will lose their hardcore conservative voters, if they go further to the right they will lose the more moderate conservatives. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson were relatively popular during the campaigns, could libertarianism be the answer to the GOP's problems?

I'm with you on the abortion freedom thing, but your belief that 5 billion humans have to die to be "sustainable" is abhorent. We've already fixed so very MANY limiting issues on population with better crops and medicine that I'm pretty damned sure there's nothing sustainable about 2 billion that 7 or 9 simply can't speak to.

Lots of people in poorer 3rd world countries already live like shit. I am not sure how you figure we got things handled atm.

Fresh water is going to be an issue soon.
Water = Food
Easily accessible oil runs out in 30-40 years.

Just because we are overpopulated right now, doesn't mean this is a sustainable number.
If we enacted a 1 child limit law, then within less than a century the population on earth would be about 2 billion.

Originally Posted by Alakir the Windlord

What could the republican party possibly change to? If they take more liberal stances they will become the same thing as the democrats and will lose their hardcore conservative voters, if they go further to the right they will lose the more moderate conservatives. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson were relatively popular during the campaigns, could libertarianism be the answer to the GOP's problems?

What could the republican party possibly change to? If they take more liberal stances they will become the same thing as the democrats and will lose their hardcore conservative voters, if they go further to the right they will lose the more moderate conservatives. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson were relatively popular during the campaigns, could libertarianism be the answer to the GOP's problems?

I really am struggling to see how freaking Paul and Johnson were at all popular from aside from the fringe people?